Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI)

[Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>]

On 2000-11-09T07:25:52,
   Michael Rothwell <rothwell@holly-springs.nc.us> said:

> Why? I think the IBM GKHI code would be of tremendous value. It would
> make the kernel much more flexible, and for users, much more friendly.
> No more patch-and-recompile to add a filesystem or whatever. There's no
> reason to hamstring their efforts because of the possibility of binary
> modules. The GPL allows that, right? So any developer of binary-only
> extensions using the GKHI would not be breaking the license agreement, I
> don't think. There's lots of binary modules right now -- VMWare, Aureal
> sound card drivers, etc.

And we already refuse to support those kernels - your point being?

Making this "commonplace" is a nightmare. Go away with that.

> I understand and agree with your desire for full source for everything,
> but I disagree that we should artificially limit people's ability to use
> Linux to solve their problems.

I want their solving of their problems not to create problems for me though.

Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>
    Development HA

-- 
Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/